First Nations insist B.C. choose between Site C dam and LNG projects in Peace River region

Tribal Chief Liz Logan watches over West Moberly Chief Roland Willson, left, and Prophet River Chief Lynette Tsakoza while Doig River Chief Norman Davis looks on during a Treaty 8 First Nations agreement signing at the B.C. Legislature in Victoria in 2010.

With a decision imminent on the Site C hydroelectric project in northeastern British Columbia, area First Nations have delivered a message to the provincial government: You can have the dam or you can have liquefied natural gas but you will not get both.

The $8-billion dam would lie in the heart of B.C.'s nascent LNG industry.

Chief Roland Willson of the West Moberly First Nation said his community has title to the Peace River valley under a century-old treaty, and a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada has bolstered their say in any industrial development on that land.

Story continues below advertisement

The band is not opposed to resource development, Willson said, but it has issued an ultimatum.

"I've said you can't have both," Willson said in an interview. "If you want to push Site C, we're not going to be in favour of any LNG projects, any of the pipeline projects up there. We don't want to be there but if that's the case, we don't have any other choice."

Willson was in Ottawa on Wednesday to deliver that message to the federal government. However, he and Chief Liz Logan of the Fort Nelson First Nation, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Ghislaini Picard of the Assembly of First Nations did not meet with any federal government officials.

"We've come to Ottawa to try and talk to the decision-makers here and we've not been able to get in front of anybody," Willson told reporters.

The dam would be the third on the Peace River in B.C., flooding 5,550 hectares of land over an 83-kilometre stretch of valley. It would generate an estimated 1,100 megawatts of capacity, or enough to power the equivalent of 450,000 homes a year.

A report by a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment panel in May made no clear recommendation.

Energy Minister Bill Bennett said announcements are expected on environmental certificates from the federal government and the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office next month. If Site C is given the go-ahead, a final decision from the province could come in November.

Story continues below advertisement

Story continues below advertisement

"Clearly we would like to have at least some of the Treaty 8 First Nations, as many as possible, involved with the actual project — their contracting firms getting business out of it, their people getting jobs out of it," Bennett said in a recent interview.

"Obviously, with no First Nation formally in support of the project at this time, we still have lots of work to do."

But there is a treaty in place, so the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on land title may not have much bearing on this particular project, he said.

The Crown-owned utility, BC Hydro, has said it needs the dam to provide for future needs and meet the province's legislated clean energy targets.

Ken Boon, a rancher whose land will be under water if the project proceeds, said he hopes the West Moberly band can convince the province to find an alternative.

"I think if they had to choose between the two, they'd choose LNG," he said. "I don't think the government really has the appetite to get into a big litigation battle with First Nations over Site C."

Story continues below advertisement

Willson said the area cannot bear the environmental impact of both LNG and the dam.

"It's too much," he said. "We're already inundated with gas activity. When you look at that, well, they can't have both."

The Peace region is responsible already for 60 per cent of the province's resource revenue, he said.

"Yes there has to be development," Willson said. "But you can't continue to develop and push constitutionally protected treaty rights off to the side. They're at a point now where they've grossly crossed over those lines."

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.

Treat others as you wish to be treated

Criticize ideas, not people

Stay on topic

Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language

Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.